As a major foodborne pathogen, Campylobacter is frequently isolated from food sources of animal origin. In contrast, human Campylobacter illness is relatively rare, but has a considerable health burden due to acute enteric illness as well as severe sequelae. To study silent transmission, serum antibodies can be used as biomarkers to estimate seroconversion rates, as a proxy for infection pressure. This novel approach to serology shows that infections are much more common than disease, possibly because most infections remain asymptomatic. This study used antibody titres measured in serum samples collected from healthy subjects selected randomly in the general population from several countries in the European Union (EU). Estimates of seroconversion rates to Campylobacter were calculated for seven countries: Romania, Poland, Italy, France, Finland, Denmark and The Netherlands. Results indicate high infection pressures in all these countries, slightly increasing in Eastern EU countries. Of these countries, the differences in rates of notified illnesses are much greater, with low numbers in France and Poland, possibly indicating lower probability of detection due to differences in the notification systems, but in the latter case it cannot be excluded that more frequent exposure confers better protection due to acquired immunity. (R.A.)

Epidemiologists have used case-control studies to investigate enteric disease outbreaks for many decades. Increasingly, case-control studies are also used to investigate risk factors for sporadic (not outbreak-associated) disease. While the same basic approach is used, there are important differences between outbreak and sporadic disease settings that need to be considered in the design and implementation of the case-control study for sporadic disease. Through the International Collaboration on Enteric Disease "Burden of Illness" Studies (the International Collaboration), we reviewed 79 case-control studies of sporadic enteric infections caused by nine pathogens that were conducted in 22 countries and published from 1990 through to 2009. We highlight important methodological and study design issues (including case definition, control selection, and exposure assessment) and discuss how approaches to the study of sporadic enteric disease have changed over the last 20 years (e.g., making use of more sensitive case definitions, databases of controls, and computer-assisted interviewing). As our understanding of sporadic enteric infections grows, methods and topics for case-control studies are expected to continue to evolve; for example, advances in understanding of the role of immunity can be used to improve control selection, the apparent protective effects of certain foods can be further explored, and case-control studies can be used to provide population-based measures of the burden of disease.

BACKGROUND: Published incidence rates of human salmonella infections are mostly based on numbers of stool culture-confirmed cases reported to public health surveillance. These cases constitute only a small fraction of all cases occurring in the community. The extend of underascertainment is influenced by health care seeking behaviour and sensitivity of surveillance systems, so that reported incidence rates from different countries are not comparable. We performed serological cross-sectional studies to compare infection risks in eight European countries independent of underascertainment.
METHODS: A total of 6,393 sera, mostly from existing serum collections representative of the adult population in Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and The Netherlands were analyzed. Immunoglobulin A (IgA), IgM, and IgG against salmonella lipopolysaccharides were measured by in-house mixed ELISA. We converted antibody concentrations to estimates of infection incidence ('sero-incidence') using a Bayesian backcalculation model, based on previously studied antibody decay profiles in persons with culture-confirmed salmonella infections. We compared sero-incidence with incidence of cases reported through routine public health surveillance and with published incidence estimates derived from infection risks in Swedish travellers to those countries.
RESULTS: Sero-incidence of salmonella infections ranged from 56 (95% credible interval 8-151) infections per 1,000 person-years in Finland to 547 (343-813) in Poland. Depending on country, sero-incidence was approximately 100 to 2,000 times higher than incidence of culture-confirmed cases reported through routine surveillance, with a trend for an inverse correlation. Sero-incidence was significantly correlated with incidence estimated from infection risks in Swedish travellers.
CONCLUSIONS: Sero-incidence estimation is a new method to estimate and compare the incidence of salmonella infections in human populations independent of surveillance artefacts. Our results confirm that comparison of reported incidence between countries can be grossly misleading, even within the European Union. Because sero-incidence includes asymptomatic infections, it is not a direct measure of burden of illness. But, pending further validation, it is a promising and cost-effective approach to assess infection risks and to evaluate the effectiveness of salmonella control programmes across countries.